City Council Agenda Packet 02-10-1986AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 10, 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held January 27,
1986, and the Special Meeting Held February 3, 1986.
3. Citizens Commenta/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints.
Public Hearings
4. Public Hearing - Adoption of Revised Zoning Ordinance and Map.
5. Public Hearing - Street Paving and Appurtenant work to the Interceptor
Sower Project, 55 Street and Chestnut Street. ,
Now Business
6. Consideration of Approving Increased Rate Schedule for Engineering
Contract with Orr-Scholon-Mayeron 6 Associates.
7. Consideration of an Application for Charitable Gambling License -
Applicant, Monticello Lioness.
S. Consideration of Renewing Joint Fire Board Agreement.
9. Consideration of Ratifying 1986 Salaries for Non-union Employees.
10. Consideration of Replacement of Unit M-37, 1951 Dodge Army Truck.
11. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 27, 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Arvo Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell.•
Dan Blonigen.
Members Absent: None.
2. Aporoval Of Minutes.
A motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting hold January 13,
1986.
4. Consideration of a Replat - Aoplicant, Doug Pitt.
The applicant requested that this item be tabled for two weeks to
allow for completion of the final plat.
5. Consideration of Defining Lines on the Proposed Zoning Map and Setting
a Public Hearing.
The City Administrator briefly explained that two additional information
meetings have been held to receive input regarding the proposed
zoning map alterations and that citizens' comments centered basically
on two areas of concern in regards to the map. One request was
made to extend the B-4 commercial district one block wast along
Broadway to accommodate a proposal to convert a residential home
into a real estate office. it was suggested by the City Planner
that possibly this block, along with a strip that abuts the B-4
zone adjacent to River Street, be proposed as PZ -M which would allow
for limited commercial operations. The Planner felt this zoning
would be appropriate, as it would provide a buffer between the commercial
and residential areas.
The City Administrator noted the second major concern centered on
the zoning of East and wont River Street areas. The past propoaod
zoning maps have indicated the area for PZ -R zoning which would
allow for ainglo family uses, along with multiple buildings provided
a conditional use is granted. Concerns have boon noted by residents
of East River Street who would like to soo the zoning remain R-1
for single family only; and as a result, the Administrator recommended
that the final public hearing and publication of the proposed zoning
maps be scheduled for February 10, 1986, with two proposed zoning
maps being published. Ono map would show River Street as R-1 oinglo
family zoning, and the other map would chow the property north of
River Street as PZ -R. This would allow the Council the opportunity
to adopt an ordinance map at the February 10 coating regardless
of which option would be finally voted on.
11
Council Minutes - 1/27/86
Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously
carried to authorize the City Administrator to publish two proposed
zoning maps for the scheduled public hearing on February 10, 1986,
and note that the Council will adopt one of the maps published at
this meeting.
6. Consideration of a Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications,
Specifying the Scope of Work to be Done and Ordering an Advertisement
for Bids for a Sewer Intercentor Improvement Project.
Mayor Grimsmo noted that Councilmember Blonigen suggested that the
sewer interceptor project, along with possibly the water improvement
project proposed for later in 1986, be tabled until a special meating
could be, conducted to discuss these items and what direction the
City will take on financing the proposed improvements. Public Works
Director, John Simola, noted that any delay in reviewing the plans
and specifications for the interceptor sewer project could delay
the project for bidding purposes and result in higher construction
cost and possibly construction over a longer period of time and
felt the Council should review and discuss the proposed interceptor
sewer project separately from the water improvement project which
would not have plans and specifications completed until lata spring.
After further discussion, Public Works Director Simola reviewed
the proposed interceptor sower project plana and specifications
•, with the Council and recommended that at a minimum, the interceptor
cover be completed from its existing point on Washington Street
to the Sixth Street area west of Highway 25. This portion of the
project would eliminate approximately 15% of the flow that now exists
along Front Street and tho lift station in Bridge Park. It was
noted that if the sower project wan constructed from the Sixth Street
point to Elm Street, approximatoly 20% of tho flow could be eliminated
from the Front street lift station and diverted through the interceptor
sewer lino. Finally, if the. entire interceptor cover waa constructed
from Washington to Elm Street and the balance of the force main
was constructed to tic into the Chestnut Street lift station on
River Street, an additional Sot of the flow could be diverted from
the Front Street lift station eliminating a total of approximately
half of the flow now occurring through thio line. It was noted
that if only the first segment is complotod during 1986, it is assumed
that in a matter of two or throe years, the balance of the interceptor
aowor would have to be constructed to eliminate problems from the
Front Street lift station. By completing the entire project at
one time, it is estimated the City could save 15-20♦ in the bid
price.
As part of the sower project, additional appurtenant work was recommended
which would include, additional water main along Fifth Straet, along
with street paving and curb and gutter of Fifth Straot and Chestnut
Straet. Those streets were eliminated from the 1977 Street Project
for the purpose of the interceptor cower construction; and it in
-2•
Council Minutes - 1/27/86
recommended that these streets be improved with curb and gutter,
etc., at this time if the project was entirely done during one season.
The -total project cost for the entire interceptor sewer line from
Washington to Elm Street, along with force main improvements and
lift station improvements on Chestnut and River Street, would total
approximately $1.4 million. It was noted that portions of the street
improvements, along with some sewer or water extensions, would be
assessable which would be determined later at an assessment hearing.
Counc:imember Blonigen questioned whether the force main proposed
along Elm Street to Chestnut may cause sewage to leak into the ground
water but was informed by the Engineer that sewage leaking out would
not be a possibility, but actually what occurs is that some ground
water may leak into the pipe.
After further discussion on the project, motion was made by Fran
Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously carried to adopt a
resolution approving the plans and specifications for the interceptor
sewer project and authorizing the advertisement for bids for the
entire project with all appurtenant work such as street improvements
and water main extensions to be bid as alternates.
Motion was also made by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing on the
proposed improvement in regards to the appurtenant work that would
be related to the interceptor sower project that could be assessable.
A public hearing would be hold on February 10, 1986. See Resolutions
86-1 and 86-2.
7. Consideration of Authorizinq Repair/Replacement of Library Furnace/
Air Conditioning.
Previously, the City Council authori=cd the staff to contract for
the installation of a bypass duct typo gas furnace in the storage
room of the library to replace one of the larger rooftop heat pumps
at the library. The largest heat pump had boon giving the City
a considerable amount of problems over the past few winters, and
a quota was rocaivod from Bruce Wachter of Griofnow Shootmotal for
the replacement furnace. The Council was informed that Mr. Wachter
had not fulfilled his initial bid: and as a result, the City was
loft with the choice of either awarding a contract to the next lowest
bidder for the installation of a gas duct furnace, or to repair
the existing rooftop unit.
The two alternatives available were to award a contract to the second
bidder for a duct typo Sao furnace at a coat of 53,596.00, and to
also have the air conditioning unit repaired at a coat of an additional
$2,000.00. The other alternative would be to replace the antirs
large rooftop combination heat pump/air conditioner with a now combination
goo furnaco/air conditioner at a coot of $6,960.00.
-3-
D
Council Minutes - 1/27/86
After further discussion, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded
4 by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to authorize the Public Works
Director to enter into an agreement with N.S. Services of Buffalo,
j Minnesota, to install a now combination gas furnace/air conditioner.
at a cost of $8,960.00 for the library.
S. Consideration of Amending the Fire Hall Construction Contract by
Extending the Completion Date Four Days.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to stipulate that February 14, 1986, be the completion date
per the original contract with Fullerton Lumber Company,, and to
grant a four day extension to February 18 to account for extra work
that was not part of the bid award.,
9. Consideration of a Proeosed Residential Subdivision in the Orderly
Annexation Area - Applicant, Kjellterg, Inc.
Recently, Kjellberg's, Inc.,. has applied to the Orderly Annexation `
- 'Board for approval of a residential subdivision located just south
of the City limits. Mayor Orimsmo had requested Council input on
this proponed subdivision for the purposes of passing along the
City Ia concerns to the OAA Board, as Mayor Grimsmo is the. City Ia---
representative to this Board.
Mr. Kent Kjoiiberg had requested that the City Council table any
discussion on his subdivision request until he had an opportunity
to discuss with the Council his proposed development. As a result,
no action was taken by the Council at this time, as the matter will
not be hoard by the OAA Board until March, ;986.
10. Consideration of Authorizing a Contract/Agroement with Monticello
Township for Fire Protection Services.
At the request of Monticello Township officials, this itam was 8106
tabled until the next Council mooting to onablo Township officials
to moat with City staff and Council members regarding the proposed
now fire contract.
1 11. Consideration of Alternatives for Traffic Signal Construction for
the Highway 25 improvement.
The Public Works Director informed the Council that currently there
will be no federal funding of the three proposed traffic signals
as part of the Highway 25 improvement project until the final bridge
location is selected. The bridge acting has boon delayed duo to
the inability to acquire the noc0aeary soil borings for the design.
Federal funding would be available if the Highway 25 improvement
project is delayed until after the bridge funding is not, but this
delay would mean that the Highway 25 improvement proposed for 1986
would not be constructed until 1987. If the Highway 25 improvement
-4-
Council Minutes - 1127/86
r
is to be bid for 1986 construction, the City could just install
l}}_: the necessary underground wiring :Ear the new traffic signals and
i'=• wait until federal funding becomes available for the actual signal
completions. This additional underground work would be funded only
by the State of Minnesota at 508, with the City and County splitting
the other 50%. This alternative would increase the cost to the
City by approximately $12,100.00 but would enable the Highway 25
Improvement to start in 1986.
It was also noted that the City and County share of the Highway 25
improvement may be lower than originally estimated in 1983 due to
some recent changes in MN/DOT picking up more of the project cost.
As a result, even with the increased cost for the signals being
borne by the City and County, their total share of the project may
actually decreaso from the original estimate.
As a result, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by, Fran Fair,
and unanimously carried to proceed with the Highway 25 improvement
as scheduled for 1986 with the resulting additional cost estimated
at $12,100.00 for the underground wiring of the three signal lights
to be picked up by the City.
12. Consideration of an Increase in League of Minnesota Cities Dues
to Help Fund the City Legal Exchange and Research (CLEAR) Service.
Motion was nada by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigon, and unanimously
carried to accept a 5% increase in the League of Minnesota Cities
duos to assist in the funding of the City Legal. Exchange and Research
Service, which was estimated at $64.00.
13. Consideration of Gamblinq License — Applicant, Monticello Youth
Hockey Association.
Monticello Youth Hockey Aasociatio , had applied for a Class B gambling
license to conduct rafflon, paddlo whools, tip boards, and pull
tabs at the Powers Strength and Health Club. The Council members
discussed who ther City approval should be granted to authorize gambling
licences other than those far the Lagion and VFW Clubs. Som* members
felt that since the State Gambling Board is regulating all gambling
licensee, the City should not interfora and approve all that aro
requested. Some members of the Council felt that granting approval
of gambling licenses would open the door to ovary organization to
have gambling licenses in all sorts of liquor establishments and
other businesses and fait that this should be regulated to just
a few.
After further discussion, a motion was made by Bill Fair, accondad
by Maxwell, to recommend to the Gambling Board that the Monticello
Youth Hockey Association license bo approved. voting in favor wan
Bill Fair, Maxwell, and Fran Fair. Opposed was Blonigon and Grimamo.
-5-
0
council Minutes - 1/27/86
14. Consideration of Bills for the Month of January.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously
carried to approve the bills for the month of January as presented.
/4
Rick wolfst. er
Assistant Administrator
RP
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 3, 1986 - 7:00 a.m.
Members Present: Arve Crimson, Frau Fair, 8111 Fair, Jack Maxwell,
Dan Blonigen.
Members Absent: None.
Also Present: City Administrator Eidem, Finance Director Wolfstaller.
A special meeting of the City Council was held on Monday, February 3,
1986, for the sole purpose of discussing salary proposals for non-union
personnel for the year 1986. City Administrator Eidem briefly reviewed
with the Council information on mean salaries he had acquired from
Minnesota communities of similar size and budget capacity for all
non-union positions. Eidem indicated that the total salary package
for 1985 reflected an approximate 5.48 increase over the 1984 salaries
and that he recommended the City Council continue to base salary
increases on the projected consumer price index for the upcoming
year as in the pant. It is anticipated that the cost of living
will increase approximately 4% in 1986; and as a result, Mr. Eidem
recommended that in establishing a 1986 salary increase, an across
the board increase of 4% to match the CPZ be granted which would
total approximately $14,632.00 based on current 1985 salaries for
non-union personnel. In addition, Eidem requested the Council grant
an additional 26 pool totaling $6,516.00 which the Administrator
would negotiate individually with each non-union personnel based
on merit, position adjustment, oto. Finally, Eidam racommanded
that the clerical staff receive an 85a per hour adjustment in base
pay to bring their base hourly pay more in line with surrounding
communities who have adjusted baso scales recently. This 854: par
hour adjustment would total approximately $7,072.00.
Administrator Eidem noted also that the fringe benefits for the
non-union personnel have not increased in over 10 years and suggested
that the City consider adding dental inauzanco to the package at
a coat of approximately 85,000.00. Eidem noted that union personnel
already receive a provision for payment of half of their unused
sick leave upon termination and also receive an additional 5 day
holiday for Christmas Eva, which non-union personnel do not receive.
Ito recommended that the Martin Luthor King Holiday be established
and that non-union personnel receive the additional S day holiday
for Christmas Eva.
A proposal was also presented by the Administrator which would allow
all City employees to establish membership in the local Health Club
facility at no cost to the City; but through City sponsorship, each
employee could receive a 10• discount. In addition, Eidem suggested
Special Council Minutes - 2/3/86
I^ that the City allow each employee to pay for the membership through
payroll deduction over a six month period and employees be allowed
to cash in up to 5 days of accumulated sick leave at half pay which
could be applied to the cost of the annual membership. Total cost'
of the package submitted by the Administrator totaled'7.3i annually.
After presentation by the Administrator, the Council discussed the
Health Club membership proposal, and it was the general consensus
of the Council that they did not feel the City should become involved
in promoting a specific local business by involving payroll deduction,
etc., for membership fees and felt that individually as a group,
the -employees could approach the Health Club to receive a discount
if they so desired.
Mayor Grimsmo noted that he initially intended to propose a 5.6%
salary increase and thought the City staff has had additional responsibilities
due to the growth of the City. He noted that the proposed 68 increase
consisting of the 48 across the board COLA adjustment and the 28
additional pool is close to his original 5.8% and agreed that additional
benefits in the form of a dental insurance program would be agrceablo.
Councilman Bl.oalgen questioned whether the cost of living adjustment
is a continuing trend which would place the City in a position of
always adjusting the salaries upward to match the cost of living.
Administrator Eidem noted that although it's hard to predict what
the cost of living would do each year, he noted that during some
of the previous years when the cost of living was in double digit
figures, the Council at that time was not able to match the cost
of living adjustments but indicated that during years when the COLA
percentage van smaller, the Council could be in a batter position
to increase salaries slightly above the proposed cost ofliving
to oven things out. In addition, Eidem noted that the 2% pool would
not be an automatic pay adjustment but would depend on morit, longevity,
and noted that not all employees may got the 2% additional pay.
Councilman Maxwell noted that the clerical staff last year had concerns
over the percentage increase being granted across the board which
normally results in a lower dollar increase for clerical employees,
as they are paid lower, and did not coo any problem with adjusting
thin one time rocommandod 85m an hour increase to help eliminate
oomo of the disparities. Councilman Dlonigon questioned what the
City budget included for salary increases during 1986, and Administrator
Eidem noted that $40,000.00 had bean budgeted.
After further discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded
by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to not the coat of living adjustment
for non-union personnel at 41 across the board with an additional
2% pool to be ootabliohod and negotiated with each employee by the
Administrator, and to. adjust the clerical personnel an additional
85C per hour. Additionally, the City would establish a dental insurance
ME
Special Council Minutes - 2/3/86
program for the employees and to establish Martin Luther King Day
as a holiday, along with a � day before Christmas.
Discussion by the Council then concerned adjusting the City Administrator's
salary. Mayor Grimsmo felt that the same percentage increase would
be justifiable for the City Administrator's position in the neighborhood
of 61. Motion was then made by Maxwell* seconded by Bill Fair,
to grant an increase to the City Administrator of $200.00 per month,
which would be just under 61 of his 1985 base salary. 'Voting in
favor was Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bili Fair, Maxwell. Opposed was Blonigen,
not based on performance of the Administrator but felt the position
may not warrant that high of an increase.
(2- - Ir. 1/k0- /-
Rick Wolfsteialler
Assistant Administrator
Council Agenda - 2/10/86
4. Public Hearing - Adoption of Revised Zoning Ordinance and Map. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Little new information will be provided in this supplement. By
your own direction, two maps were published for this public hearing,
indicating that one or the other would be adopted. As noted, the
entire process has centered primarily on a conflict of the appropriate
zoning for River Street. This area has even been narrowed down
to accept one of two zones, to wit, R-1 (single family residential)
or PZ -R (performance zone -residential). The two maps published
presented one alternative using the performance zone and one alternative
using single family residential. The remainder of the City is the
same on both maps.
Upon the completion of the public hearing, the Council may take
any action it desires. The following is a brief description of
possible actions and what the results will mean. Proposal H1 is
introduced by motion and second. It passes on at least a 4 to 1
vote. The entire zoning matter is now complete with the exception
of publication. If the proposal does not receive 4 affirmative
votes, then the proposal is considered defeated, and the existing
ordinance is still in effect. At this point, the Council may introduce
Proposal q2 by motion and properly seconded. If this receives a
4 to 1 affirmative vote, then this ordinance will be complete with
the exception of publication. If it does not receive the necessary
4 votes to pass, then the existing ordinance remains in effect,
unamonded. If both proposals fail, the Mayor has the option of
accepting a second motion on either proposal. He also has the option
of refusing any additional motions on the question.
It is essential to nota that passage of either of the proposals
requires a minimum of 4 affirmative votes from the Council. Statute
requires that zoning achieve two-thirds (2/3) majority, but with
a five member Council, two-thirds cannot be achieved; consequently,
we must go to the Pour-fiftho (4/5).
If a now ordinance is adopted, than we will commonco proceedings
to got it published and printed and stipulate the effective data
of the now ordinance. If a now ordinance is adopted, tho Council
may wish to consider, by separate motion, ordering the Planning
Commission to review all proposals before it in light of the now
ordinance, or to not hoar any now matters until the ordinance is
in affect. The time lag between adoption and taking affect should
be only a matter of a few weeks.
-1-
Council Agenda - 2/10/86
J
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: -
1. Adopt Proposal @1.
2. Adopt Proposal 92.
3. Adopt neither.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff's only recommendation is that one of the two proposals be
adopted. The land use controls and development provisions and requirements
provided .in the new text are far ,more effective than the requirements
laid out under the old zoning ordinance. From a staff perspective,
it will be far more effective, to work under the terms of the new
ordinance, regardless of the zoning designations drawn on the map.
Staff makes no recommendation with respect to where, the zoning linea
ought to be drawn on the map. We have taken a position, at this
time, that whatever the zoning map is when finally adopted, we are
charged with the responsibility of administering that ordinance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the center section of the Monticello Times shoving both
maps.
-2.
Council Agenda - 2/10/86
5, Public Hearing - Street Paving and Appurtenant Work to the Interceptor
Sewer Project, 5� Street and Chestnut Street. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the last meeting, the Council voted to include options for certain
appurtenant work with the interceptor sewer. Those options were
in the area of 5� Street from Maple to Pine, and Chestnut Street
from Broadway to River Street.
55 Street
1. Street Paving
The street paving for 55 Street could consist of merely replacing
the rural type 24 -foot wide street section or a 36 -foot wide curb
and guttered urban street. The cost of the urban type paving from Maple to
Pine would be $120,100.00. An additional coat of $20,000.00 would
be needed for the storm sewer to change from a rural to an urban
typo section making the total cost of the street construction with
storm sewer to be $140,100.00. There are approximately 37 benefiting lots
which would adjoin this street paving.
2. Water Main
The proposal for water main on 55 Street is to run from Maple to
Walnut Street. This 8 -inch water main would mainly serve the north
aide of 55 Street, as the property on the south aide of 55 Street
is already served off of Sixth Street. The coat of this water main
is estimated at $45,000.00. There are currently 15 Iota on the
north aide of 5y Street between Maple and Walnut. In addition,
there is one-half of a lot on the south aide of 5% Street just west
of the Piro Hall which is not served by water. Thin lot in not
buildable and will not be served.
3. Sanitary Sower
The sanitary sower needed on 5% Street consists of construction
of an 6 -inch PVC main from Maple to Linn Street. This sanitary
sower would serve five lots on the north aide of 5% Street. It
is possible that the previously mentioned half lot on the south
aide just went of the Piro Hall could be served by thio line also.
The coat of construction of thin sanitary sower would be $14,600.00.
In addition, there is a need to install one shallow manhole and
a short section of pips near Pine and 5y Street. This short section
of pipe would servo the Suburban Can with sanitary sower. Coat
would be in the area of $1,500.00.
-3-
Council Agenda - 2/10/86
Chestnut Street
This improvements to Chestnut Street center around the proposed
street construction. The project could simply be repatching of
the existing rural type surface after the installation of the force
main or constructing a 36 -foot wide curb and guttered urban type
street. The cost of the urban type street is estimated at $22,000.00.
There are currently seven separate pieces of property on Chestnut
Street.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
There are several alternatives for possible assessments in regard
to these improvements. The Street work, for example, containing
the necessary atom sewer generally benefits all those parties
involved that have access from the street. If we counted the total
assessable footage, we would have 2,442 lineal feet. Assessing
100% of the project, we would end up with a cost of approximately
$52.26 per lineal foot. Assessing 50% of the project to those
property owners except the City would result in an assessment of
$31.49 per lineal foot. If we assessed only 20% of the street
construction to those benefiting properties except the City, the
assessment would be $12.60 per lineal foot. There has been much
discussion about including these areae of SS Street and Chestnut
Street as part of the 77-3 project in that they be only assessed
20% of the coat. As far as we have been able to determine, we
have no written documents to that affect. However, it is the staff's
understanding that the only reason that these streets ware not
completed with the 77-3 project is that additional work in the
area of utilities was needed prior to the installation of the streets.
For the water improvements, especially on 51, Street, it appears
the only benefiting property between Maple and Walnut would be
the north side of 5S Street, which is all Burlington Northern property.
Since the cost of the water improvements are oatimated to be 545,000.00,
100% of the coat assessed against this property would be approximately
$15,000.00 par block. It is our intention that two commercial
typo water services be provided in each one of those three blocks.
There is a small portion of water main that is included with the
project that would serve the Lucius Johnson property. we intend
to construct enough water main south from the intaroaction of Linn
and Sixth Street so on to not have to dig up this intersection
again for utility improvements. Coat of this small portion of
water main would be in the area of $2,000.00-57,000.00.
In the area of oanitary aawar improvementa, sanitary aowor service
will be provided to the area of Suburban Gas at an estimated coat
of 51,500.00. Thin cost we fool should be totally 100% assoaaod
to that parcel that Burlington Northern owns and loaaon to Suburban
Goo. The other portion of property to be served by oanitary sower
at this time other than lateral atubo in the block on 5S Stroot
between Maplo and Linn. It is the intention at this time that
only the northern half of 5% Street would benefit from the oanitary
newer norvican. It is, however, agreed amongst the otaff that
-4-
Council Agenda - 2/10/66
the City at large benefits from the installation of this sanitary
sewer lateral in that it will transfer the load of approximately
30 some homes into the interceptor sewer. We, therefore, feel
that the estimated cost of $16,600.00 should be split and that
only 50%, or $7,300.00, should be assessed to the five lots on
the north side of 55 Street. The 57,300.00 is a reasonable cost
for sanitary sewer service to that block. Since Burlington Northern
would be the only one assessed for sanitary sewer, their total
coat is estimated to be $6,800.00.
In summary, the most number of options appear to center around
the street construction rather than utility construction. The
three options as we see it are for 100%, 501, or 20%.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATI0N:
The staff recommendations are to assess 100% of the water to the
benefiting property. It is further recommended that we cssess
50% of the cost of the lateral sanitary sewer on 55 Street to Burlington
Northern, and that we assess 100% of the cost of the sewer hookup
for Suburban Gas to Burlington Northern. It is further recommended
that we assess 100% of the small water main installation extension
to Lucius Johnson as the benefiting property owner. The recommendation
for the street construction we see at the Council's option. There
certainly is soma merit in less than 100% assessment.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Maps of the areas involved.
-5-
STREET BENEFIT ONLY
STREET AND WATER BENEFIT
ui
>
STREET, SEWER G WATER BENEFIT
Ml il IR HT11'"ll
BROADWAY
3 z 2 ° ;; l ° =11 llI1� 1.1�
s :,LL LL IL
:: ,
3 RD.
—27--
1' 10
--3C--
4 TH
16, ;o .l
10 1ilo'o
2(--
10
kli�
'4 1 3
0
GTH
ST
4 •w
10" *01 "o
u V) I
ip — 4 7
77H
6
W,
ADD-ON
Council Agenda - 2/10/86
6. Consideration of Approving Increased Rate Schedule for Engineering
Contract with Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Associates. (T. E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City maintains a one-year, automatically renewable contract
with OSM for Consulting Engineering services. Article 9 of the
contract provides that each year the schedule of hourly rates may
be revised when agreed upon by the City and the Engineer. A letter
from John Badalich dated January 15, 1986, requests that engineering
and technical staff salaries increase 4.94. While 4.98 is accurate
for the entire technical staff, it is not entirely accurate with
respect to increased spending by the City. Of the 10 positions
itemized in the fee schedule, the City utilizes only three of those
positions just a little over 804 of the time. This figure is based
on the hours actually billed to the City for 1985. Those three
positions are the Principal, which has a proposed increase of 4.34,
the Project Engineer, which reflects a requested increase of 5.64,
and the Technician, which has a proposed increase of 64. In 1985,
49.54 of the total hours paid by the City vent to the Project Engineer.
Consequently, while the overall roster of engineering staff increases
approximately 54, the major thrust of our expenditures aro falling
on the staff people who are in the 5.6 to 64 increase range. If
we take the 1985 hours charged to the City and apply those identical
hours to the 1986 rates, the City would be paying out an additional
1 $1,545.00, or 5.54 increase.
As far as the provisions to the contract go, John Simola and I feel
that two additions should be made to the contract text. We fool
that it would be appropriate for the City to have a mechanism to
withhold o ratainago of the overall foe until final completion of
a project is accepted. We have suggested that the City retain a
sum not to exceed 54 which will be paid in full when the City receives
all final project documents, including as-builts, shop drawings,
teat reaults, and any other governmental or agency certifications
and approvals which may be required. Also, John and I fool that
in the section which addressee feasibility studies, tho contract
should specifically state that in any and all feasibility studies,
the engineer will lint all of the potential licenses, permits, or
studios which will or may be required to do the project under study.
I guess this provision came to mind in that we have worked on the
interceptor sower for several years, and at the 11th hour we discovered
that an EAW wan required. It occurs to us that any of those typos
of requirements should show up during the feasibility study phase
no everyone is fully aware and can make the necessary preparations
to complete the work. Formal language for those contract provisions
have not yet boon drafted, but we would liko the Council to consider
the concept.
-6-
Council Agenda - 2/10/86
These are the only alterations of substance staff would like to
see incorporated into the contract.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the contract as is, incorporating the new fee schedule
proposed by OSM.
2. Request that the hourly rates for certain technical staff be
adjusted to more accurately reflect a 4.5 to 58 increase. If
these fees are then agreed upon, adopt the contract without
change and with the amended fee schedule.
3. Negotiate a reduced fee schedule as described above, and request
the insertion of the two new provisions covering retainage and
feasibility studies. If agreed upon, adopt the amended contract
with the now text and the now fee schedule.
4. Do not adopt the contract.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
With respect to the fee schedule, there is no formal recommendation
from staff. I am merely providing the data so that the Council
can make an informed decision. Using the 1985 comparison to 1986
based on the same hours, the S1,545.00 increase is not a major expenditure
in relation to the overall budget. 'I guano the decision factor
onters as to whether or not you wish to debate real dollars or percentage
amounts.
Staff does, howevor, recommond that the Council request the now
provisions covering rotainaga and feasibility studios.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the 1985 foo schedule; Copy of the proposod 1986 fee schedule;
Copy of John Badalich-o letter of January 15.
-7-
L
ORB-SCNELEN-MAYERON ft ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineers
Land Surveyors
January 15, 1986
Mr. Thomas £idem, Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello. Mn 55362
Re: Engineering Services Agreement
Dear Mr. Eidem:
Pursuant to Article 9 of the Contractor for Engineering Services between the City
of Monticello and OSM. 1 am enclosing for your consideration a copy of the re-
vised schedule of hourly rates for 1986. These hourly rates are applicable in
1986 for work performed on an hourly basis as set forth in the Engineering
Agreement.
The salaries for the engineering and technical staff category has increased
approximately 4.9% over 1985 to reflect salary increases this past year. The
multiplier remains at 2.15. and the rate shown is a flat rate for this category
of work.
All costs related to word processing, clerical, printing, and mileage charges are
again considered in our overhead, and no billing will be made for these support
services in 1986.
We look forward to continuing our good working relationship in 1986 with the City
of Monticello in providing professional services as your city engineer and engi-
neering consultant. If you have any questions, please contact me.
Yours very truly,
ORR-SCHEIEN-MAYEROM
A ASSOCIATE5, INC.
rJohnesident
JPS:min
enclosure
0
2021 fast Hennepin Avens q - Suite 238 • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 • 6121331-8660
,1 i�.t: �/ ` ORR•SCNEIEN-MAYERON &ASSOCIATES INC
Consulting Engineers ,
Land Surveyors 1985 FEE SCHEDULE
Schedule of hourly salary costs to he multiplied by 2.25 to determine hourly fee.
Principal
$34.50
Project iianager
27.75
Project Engineer, Surveyor, Planner
22.50
Engineer, Surveyor, Planner
19.00
Designer
21.00
Technician
16.75
Technician 1
14.75
Schedule for hourly salary costs to be multiplied by 2.15 to determine hourly
fee.
Construction Observer $19.00
3 -Man Survey Crew 38.00
2 -Man Survey Crew 30.00
"Salary cost" is defined as salaries (including sick leave, vacation or holiday
pay applicable thereto) of personnel for time directly chargeable to the project,
plus unemployment and payroll taxes, employer's contribution for social security,
employee 's insurance. retirement benefits, and medical and surgical benefits. The
actual salary cost is dependent upon the hourly rate of the employee assigned to
the proj ett. except that Construction Observers and Survey Crews will be charged
at the flat rate shown above.
All costs, such as vehicle mileage, survey equipment and vehicles. computer ser-
vices, word processing, clerical, printing and reproduction costs are included in
the hourly fee.
The fee for attendance at regular council meetings will be $40.00 per meeting.
Statements issued monthly will include names of personnel Associated with the
work and a summary of time spent. 9
2021 fast Hennepin Avenue - Suite 238 - Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 - 6121331.8660
ORR SCNELEN•MAYERON &ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineers
Land Surveyors
1986 FEE SCHEDULE
Schedule of hourly salary costs to be multiplied by 2.25 to determine hourly fee.
Principal
$36.00
Project Manager, Surveyor, Planner
29.50
Project Engineer, Surveyor, Planner
23.75
Engineer, Surveyor, Planner
20.00
Designer
21.00
Technician
17.75
Technician 1
15.75
Schedule for hourly salary costs to be multiplied by 2.15 to determine hourly
fee.
Construction Observer $20.00
3 -Man Survey Crew 40.00
244an Survey Crew 32.00
"Salary cost" is defined as salaries (including sick leave, vacation or holiday
pay applicable thereto) of personnel for time directly chargeable to the project.
plus unemployment and payroll taxes. employer's contribution for social security,
employee's insurance, retirement benefits, and medical and surgical benefits. The
actual salary cost is dependent upon the hourly rate of the employee assigned to
the project, except that Construction Observers and Survey Crews will be charged
at the flat rate shown above.
All costs, such as vehicle mileage, survey equipment and vehicles, computer ser-
vices, word processing, clerical, printing and reproduction costs are included in
the hourly fee.
The fee for attendance at regular council meetings will be $40.00 per meeting.
Statements issued monthly will include names of personnel associated with thw
work and a summary of time spent. x
2021 East Hennepin Avenue - Suite 238 • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 • 6121331- 8660 V
P,
FEE SCHEDULE COMPARISON
Principal
Project Manager
Project Engineer, Surveyor, Planner
Engineer, Surveyor, Planner
Designer
Technician
Technician I
Construction Observer
3 -Men Survey Crew
2 -Man Survey Crew
1985
1986
8 Change
5 34.50
$ 36.00
4.31
27.75
29.50
6.31
22.50
23.75
5.61
19.00
20.00
5.31
21.00
21.00
None
16.75
17.75
6.01
14.75
15.75
6_81
$156.25
$163.75
4.81
5 19.00
S 20.00
5.31
38.00
40.00
5.31
30.00
32.00
6.71
5 87.00
S 92.00
5.71
$243.25
$255.75
5.11
6
OU
I
MinnesotaCharitableGambling Control Board FOR BO1A� usE ONLY
•`�900 Summit State Bank Building �` IL d,
S; 310 4th Avenue South 'TTTTlILliilll _ -
Minneapolis,MN 55415
(612) 341-7676
GAMBLING LICENSE APPLICATION
(Class A, B, or 0 $
INSTRUCTIONS: _`.1. -PRINT OR TYPE. ^-'•'" "' ,
" 2. Bring completed application to local governing body, obtain signature and date on all copies,
and leave goldenrod copy. Applicant keeps pink copy and sends remaining copies to above
seldress.
). Cter+ es to a ! at on in/o rmat ton m� t Dm ! a w hin ' r n .n �
Tvpe of App 11[at ion;
❑ Class A - Fee $100.00 (Bingo, Raffles, Paddlewheels, Tipboards, Pull -Tabs)
❑ Class B - Fee $ 50.00 (Raffles, Paddlewheels, Tipboards, Pull -Tabs)
❑ Class C - Fee $ 50.00 (Bingo only)
Make checks oavable to: Minnesota Charitable Osmbltnn Fonnrnl 5Wd.
Applicant (Official, legal name of organization) Site Addreas
' ionc:czlln Llott-sa (!cab '^11 7 ^• ^, _
Business Address City, State, Zip
City, State, Zip (County
!rci:cll "� 15161 ••
rn,,n y Yea No I. Am all gambling activities conducted at
alt the above sits' If no, complete a sepa-
Bualnesa Telephone (Maroc federei I.D. Number rate application form for each Site as a
( 612 ) 295-3119 7 NA T4 separate license is issued for each site.
pe of Organiuuon 2. Is site located within city/t nwn limits'
�1, Fraternal ❑ Veterans
❑
a UOther Nonprofit Organization T. ReltQsouDoes organization own the site where
a typo of ergenliation Charter gambling activity will be conducted' 11
' International ❑ National ❑ Stats no, attach copy o1 the lea.. for the
Number of Years In Irs oz Ar[ic les of a t
E.lat—Ce (in Minnesota) rpo rd ion (if incorporated' lasso'! Name kit �,(1aa or rent)
7 r^n
Coca Cion Where Articles are filed Address
Lions [n._.^..,%"CMjl. (kKD_ c, IL ryQ:� zw _13C :�e� h':'✓e
Yes No 1. Does organization have a dues Structurs ' :sty. State, ZIP
_.b r of artib members L.,�_�J1. , •+
�. has organization been previously licensed Lambl ing Manager Naar
by the RoeW If res, give date -
�. tea license over been denied, suspended rose
or revoked' Ir yes check all tfet apply: i '
Or— ted ❑4i'pe.Mrd ❑Rr.bkea city, State. Zip
.mm _
+. Is organization ept from pays ant o/ ".1 �•
U.S. income ts.' If yea, attach copy of In. $IO,U00 fidelity bond required by Minnesota
letter declaring r. , t inn. Statute• 549.09 has peen obtained.
5. Is organization to e.empt from paveent ..Company Name Enna Number
o/ Minreaots to' 11 yes, attach ropy of •, ,t-t.,`t
•' letter drrlaring r.emptinn•
r
1
News, of am t,t),aa
1t'fri 1'trlTc^t - k'rsll�KTC C. t2%i Lslu
b, Yat PA -1 2a14 - Vic-- P. -33i t?nt d, •'arc 'vscT:e - smite,. CQC
CG00001-01 (12/$4) GamtSraad an Page 2
Council Agenda - 2/10/86
8. Consideration of Renewing Joint Fire Board Agreement. (R.w.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the previous Council meeting, this item was tabled by the Council
to allow Township Board members an opportunity to meet with City
staff ,regarding the new proposed fire contract agreement. The Township
officials had requested the meeting prior to any decision being
made by the City Council. Last Monday afternoon, Franklin Donn
and Marge Goetzke of the Township met with City staff and Arve Grimsoo
to review the information regarding a new contract. At that meeting,
a review was made of the two proposals submitted with the previous
Council agenda relating to a now contract using a formula similar
to our current contract with Silver Creek Township and the formula
suggested by the University of Minnesota called Fair Share Proposal.
Both proposals as presented would substantially increase the cost
of fire protection services to Monticello Township. After reviewing
the figures and how they were arrived at, Mr. Denn presented the
information to the Township Board at their regular meeting Tuesday
night for their consideration.
The Monticello Township Board approved the concept of a now agreement
making the charge for fire protection services more realistic with
their usage, and they indicated that the figuro under the Fair Share
Proposal in the neighborhood of $16,000.00 annually could be agreed
upon. The City staff's original proposal under the Fair Share method
would have boon under a contract basis with the Joint Fire Board
being dissolved as of December 31, 1985; but the Township Board
would like to see the Joint Fire Board continued and altor the formula
within the contract to coincide with the Fair Share Proposal in
the neighborhood of $16,000.00.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The alternative actions listed in the proviouc Council agenda are
still a vailablo ae proposed, and an additional alternative would
be to basically combine alternatives i2 and f3 to form a now Fair
Sharo agroomant but also retain the Joint Fire Board.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION;
It is the staffs recommendation that fire protection services be
continued for the Township using the Fair Share formula in the neighborhood
of $16.700.00 annually and rewrite the provicuo contract which established
the Joint Piro Board. It should bo noted that the rewriting of
the Joint Fire Contract should include the formula established under
the Fair Share Proposal but also may require additional annual payments
from the Township if they wish to continue to acquire equity ownership
in major capital outlay items. It is our understanding that the
-6-
Council Agenda - 2/10/86
$16,000.00 estimated cost does not include any continued equity
accumulation by the Township; but if they would like to see this
part retained in the Joint Fire Agreement, their annual payments
may be above this amount when major capital outlay items are purchased.
The staff is currently in the process of rewriting the Joint Agreement
and should have a proposed contract available for Council approval
Monday evening, which can then be presented to the Township Board.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
No other data is supplied other than items included with the January 27
Council agenda.
-9-
Council Agenda - 2/10/86
9. Consideration of Ratifying 1986 Salaries for Non-union Employees. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the special City Council meeting hold Monday, February 3, the
City Council approved purchasing employee dental insurance and an
854t per hour clerical adjustment. The dental package was projected
to coat $5,100.00 per year, while the clerical adjustment was projected
to coat $7,072.00 based on four employees working a full 2080 hours
per year. These two items do not need addit Lanai L rati fica tion since
your motion was to award those values. In the same motion, the
Council established an inflationary pool set at S14,632.00, which
a= is based upon 48 of last year's non-union employee payroll.
My interpretation of the motion is that the 48 inflationary adjustment
was to be awarded across the board. That 41 has, in fact, been
awarded as it has in the past. That is to say, within a given class
of employees, I selected the highest paid employee, determined the
48 dollar amount, and then awarded the same dollar amount to each
employee in that class. Since any discrepancy that might exist
between two employees within a given class is based primarily on
length of service, I utilize the constant dollar figure so that
the spread does not increase. In addition to the 48 inflationary
pool, Council motion also granted an amount of $6,516.00 in a pool
which is equal to 21 of the non-union employee payroll for 1985.
This adjustment pool was to be awarded based on changes in job factor,
performance, and/or significant contributions to the City.
As I noted at the meeting, the percent amounts of the projected
pools did include the 1985 salaries for the Liquor Stora Manager
and the Economic Development Director, oven though those positions
will not be awarded salary increases at this time. I included those
amounts because the positions may need to be evaluated at either
the comparable worth review or at some other mid-torm point. I
do wish to nota that while the total raises granted tomo in substantially
under the pools allocated, that is largely because those two raises
aro not granted; but oven if they were. we would tomo in under pool
allotment. The following list indicates the raises I have negotiated
with the individual employees and respectfully request ratification
from the City Council. (NOTE: The Administratorla salary dome
not need further ratification since it wan formally adopted and
approved at the special meeting.)
(4e)
1985 + COLA + Adj. (t) 1986
Rick Wolfstollor $32,538 $1,302 $690 (2) $34,530
John $imole 31,475 1,302 693 (2.1) 3:f,470
Gary Anderson 25,205 1,010 540 (2) 26,755
Roger Mack 25,010 1,000 540 (2.1) 26,550
C Walt Mack 24,729 1,000 521 (2) 26,250
Albert Moyor 23,133 1,000 372 (1.5) 24,505
-10-
Council Agenda - 2/10/86
The rationale for the raises is as follows. I will be glad to expand
at the Council meeting if you have specific questions. For Lynnea,
Diane, Marlene, and Karen, the $.34 reflects the 41 coat of living,
and the 5.85 is the position adjustment. An additional $.13 per
hour was granted to Marlene Hellman to bring her into closer alignment
with the hourly wage of Diana Jacobson. Diane Jacobson, with 8
years less service to the City, wan only $.24 behind Lynnea, while
Marlene was $.33 behind Diane with only one year difference in service.
Thia extra adjustment spreads the range out more equitably to reflect
the actual length of service to the City. No additional moniao
out of the 2% adjustment pool were awarded to the clerical staff.
For Rick Wolfatellor and John Simola, the $1,302.00 represents the
44 inflationary increase. The $690.00 reflects a full 2% salary
increase to acknowledge their performance in 1985. In Rick'a case,
he maintained his usual excellent performance and passed the 10-yaar
mark with the City. In John's Casa, I felt that the award was worthy
for the effort he put into the grant application on the softball
field complex and the easement acquisitions with relation to the
interceptor cower. Easement work has always been performed by the
City Engineer and City Attorney at their regular consulting hourly
rates in the pact. The ono -on -ono meetings that John conducted,
as wall as the public mooting that he conducted, were all over and
above normally proscribed dution of a public Works Director. For
the Building Inspector, the $1,010.00 raflocts the 4% inflationary
coot. The $540.00 is a 26 adjustment. I believe Oary'e adjustment
is warranted solely by the incroacod workload that hao boon placed
on the office. The effort that has gone into the Zoning Ordinance,
the increased roquosto for plate and rezoning, and the increased
building all changed the nature of the job somewhat. In addition,
there has boon a major commercial assessment rowrito which affected
-il-
(4a)
1985 +
COLA +
Adj.
(8)
1986
Sean Hancock
$22,466
S 900
$344
(1.5)
$23,710
Lynnea Gillham
8.37
.34
.85
(9.7)
9.56
(19,885),
Diane Jacobson
8.13
.34
.85
(10)
9.32
(19,385)
Marlene Hellman
7.80
.34
.98
(12)
9.12
(18,970)
Karen Doty
7.74
.34
.85
(10.5)
8.90
(18,512)
011ie Koropchak
22,900
---
---
22,900
Joe Hartman
25,500
---
---
25,500
Karen Hanson
13,280
S 530
$490
(3.7)
14,300
The rationale for the raises is as follows. I will be glad to expand
at the Council meeting if you have specific questions. For Lynnea,
Diane, Marlene, and Karen, the $.34 reflects the 41 coat of living,
and the 5.85 is the position adjustment. An additional $.13 per
hour was granted to Marlene Hellman to bring her into closer alignment
with the hourly wage of Diana Jacobson. Diane Jacobson, with 8
years less service to the City, wan only $.24 behind Lynnea, while
Marlene was $.33 behind Diane with only one year difference in service.
Thia extra adjustment spreads the range out more equitably to reflect
the actual length of service to the City. No additional moniao
out of the 2% adjustment pool were awarded to the clerical staff.
For Rick Wolfatellor and John Simola, the $1,302.00 represents the
44 inflationary increase. The $690.00 reflects a full 2% salary
increase to acknowledge their performance in 1985. In Rick'a case,
he maintained his usual excellent performance and passed the 10-yaar
mark with the City. In John's Casa, I felt that the award was worthy
for the effort he put into the grant application on the softball
field complex and the easement acquisitions with relation to the
interceptor cower. Easement work has always been performed by the
City Engineer and City Attorney at their regular consulting hourly
rates in the pact. The ono -on -ono meetings that John conducted,
as wall as the public mooting that he conducted, were all over and
above normally proscribed dution of a public Works Director. For
the Building Inspector, the $1,010.00 raflocts the 4% inflationary
coot. The $540.00 is a 26 adjustment. I believe Oary'e adjustment
is warranted solely by the incroacod workload that hao boon placed
on the office. The effort that has gone into the Zoning Ordinance,
the increased roquosto for plate and rezoning, and the increased
building all changed the nature of the job somewhat. In addition,
there has boon a major commercial assessment rowrito which affected
-il-
Council Agenda - 2/10/86
his role, as well as extensive Civil Defense exercises in the past
year. For the three superintendents, the $1,000.00 reflects the
46 inflationary adjustment on the highest paid employee. For Roger
Mack, his extra efforts in the softball field grant application
warrants financial acknowledgement. I think it is also worthy to
note that snow removal has been excellent thus far this winter.
For Walt Mack, the increase is the full 2% to reflect length of
quality service and faithful performance of duties. The $372.00
granted to Albert Mayer is a 1.58 increase over cost of living and
is to primarily acknowledge effort. Albert's service has improved
greatly over last year when he was not granted any increase while
he had to cope both with major breakdowns at the Plant and extended
absences of two of the workers. Perhaps equally important is that
Albert is showing progress in effort but readily admits all problems
have not been solved. Last note on Albert Meyer, while this reflects
a 5y8 increase this year, over the two-year period it only reflects
2.75 per year. For Sean, Hancock, $900.00 is the inflationary increase,
and $344.00 reflects 1.51 performance adjustment. Sean did have
an extended absence for health reasons at one point, but has come
back to work to perform at a much higher level than previously.
While the position of lob analyst may not carry a major job value,
the fact that Sean is a trained chemist with his Bachelor's Degree
warrants soma acknowledgement for expert credentials. Also, Sean
achieved his "A" Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator's License in
1985. For Karen Hanson, $530.00 reflects the 49 inflationary increase.
My original projection was to grant Karen an additional $270.00,
2%, increase for quality service over the past 14 years. Karen
felt that her overall salary was under the mean for active centers,
which seems to be true. Karen, being the lowest paid employee,
generally 10 somewhat ponalized when awarded increases solely by
percentage. She tends to fall further and further behind other
employees. Based on my diacuseion with Karen, our Senior Canter
handles an average of 200 to 400 clients weekly, not counting the
special events. She has responsibility for the building on weekends
and evenings when there aro special events. She has consistently
written successful grant applications which have generated several
thousands of dollars for City improvements to the Senior Cantor.
In 1985, for example, she wrote a McKnight Grant for $1,900.00 for
the Cantor. Based on those accomplishments, I agreed to award her
an overall adjustment worth 3.7%, or $490.00.
That than to my rationale for the non-union employees and the salary
awards granted. Technically speaking, one of two motiono can bo
presented for adoption. Either you can maks a motion Dotting tho
adjustments for non-union amploycoo (excluding secretarial), or
you can make a motion Dotting the 1986 calarica, in final form,
thereby eliminating all reference to raises, percentages, etc.
My racommandation to the lattor.
I am not supplying any altornativo actions, staff racommondation,
nor additional supporting data.
-12-
�L
s
:��°^�a
ti
� �� � p
D
�\ 1,
Council Agenda - 2/10/86
10. Consideration of Replacement of Unit M-37, 1951 Dodge Army Truck. (J .S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City acquired the M-37 army truck through the Federal Surplus
Property Program in 1979 for a cost of $350.00. After approximately
$100.00 worth of repairs, the vehicle was put into use and used
extensively in the Park and Street Department. Over the past seven
years, we have come to realize some of the shortcomings of the vehicle.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to get parts for the vehicle,
and the unit does not operate well in cold weather. It becomes
extremely difficult to start; and due to its open type construction,
it is not very warm for the driver. In addition, since the top
speed of the vehicle is 30 mph, it is difficult to use it to run
parts or errands and takes a oignifieant amount of time to travel
from one end of town to the other.
During the preparation of the 1986 Budget, the Street Superintendent
and myself felt that we would replace the unit with a 3/4 ton pickup
and a trailer. The pickup would be used to haul materials in and
out of the parks, and dirt, and transport men, run errands, etc.
The trailer would be used to transport the mowing equipment from
one and of town to the other such as out to the NSP Ball Fieldo
or out to Meadow Oak. In the 1986 Budget, we placed an amount of
$5,000.00 plus an estimated trade-in or sale value of the army jeep
of $1,500.00, plus $1,500.00 for the trailer, for a total of $8,000.00.
Recently, while preparing for the proposed purchase, we re-ovaluatod
the Park and Street Dopartment'o needs. We now feel that a 1 -ton
dump truck would more adequately serve the needs of the Park and
Street Department than would a pickup/trailer combination. The
pickup/trailer combination an we see it has several drawbacks.
Ono, any of the newer pickups require unleaded fuel, and we do not
have unloaded fuel available at the Street Shop. Two, the pickup
itself would not expand the capabilities of the vehicle an would
a 1 -ton. And three, adding a trailer to the Street Department would
take up valuable otorago apace. The most ideal vehicle then becomes
a 1 -ton dump truck. The 1 -ton would not take up any more apace
than the existing truck, and it would have the capabilities of hauling
and dumping materialo rather than ohovaling out by hand an would
a pickup. A couple of small ramps could be built, and we would
be able to use the back of the dump truck for hauling and transporting
mowing equipment. The truck could aloo be used to run after small
loads of patching materials. we generally use a 1 -ton batch at
a time for patching because the mix coolo rapidly. It in much simpler
to use the 1 -ton truck for patching.
We found throe particular 1 -ton dump trucks that were within the
range of our budget. Two of the trucks, both Forda, were retired
from the Minnonpolio/St. Paul Airport Commission. The third truck
was a general contractor -s truck who recently traded it in on a
now vahiclo.
-13-
Council Agenda - 2/10/86
The following is a tabulation of those vehicles and costs.
Dealer Truck Year Miles Price Necessary Repairs
Hartse Motors Ford 1 -ton 1977 58,000 $4,850 Rear tires, front bumper.
Blaine entire floor of cab,
- cab mounts.
Hartse Motors Ford 1 -ton 1981 31,000 $6,950 Frame repair, badly
Blaine rusted, patching of
floor, tailgate missing.
Iten Chev. Chev 1 -ton 1983 38,000 $7,200 No visible rust,
Brooklyn Park tires fair to good,
now paint white and
brown.
By far the beat value for the dollar is the 1983 Chevrolet 1 -ton
from Iten Chevrolet for $7,200.00. This truck in the eummor would
sell for around $8,500 to $9,000.00. The replacement cost for a
Chevrolet or Ford 1 -Lon now today is between $15,000 and $17,000.00.
Both of the other trucks which we examined from Harteo Motors, oven
though they had low miles and now paint jobs, were extremely rusted.
Tho 1977 was rusted to the point we felt of non-ropair. From conversations
with the Airport Commission, we found that these trucks wore traded,
duo to their axtremoly poor condition body -wise and frame -wino for
the 1981.
The price of $7,200.00 for the 1983 Chevrolet is $800.00 lase than
the total budgeted amount. Thin difforenco would allow for some
minor repairs to bo made if they ware found at a later data, or
for possibly selling the army joep for lose than my appraised value
of it, or for a paint job on the 1983 Chevy if the Council dooms
it necessary. The City could paint the truck this summer for an
estimated coat of $100.00 in materials.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Alternative Y1 would bo to do nothing and continua an we aro.
2. Tho second altarnativo would be to purchase a pickup and a trailer
combination.
3. The third alternative would be to purchaoa the 1983 Chovrolot
1 -ton from Itan Chevrolet for $7,200.00.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of tho Stroot and Park Suporintandont and
the Public works Diroctor that the Council authoriea tho purchaoa
-14-
0
Council Agenda - 2/10/86
of the 1963 Chevrolet 1 -ton from Iten Chevrolet as outlined in Alternative
V. Iten Chevrolet will make the truck available for visual inspection
by the Council just prior to the meeting on Monday evening in the
City Hall parking lot.
A